Redmask wrote on Oct 7, 2014, 21:31:Oh please, go read some of her tweets, she antagonizes people on purpose and brags about ruining careers.

This is my first time hearing about this chick and her troubles, but according to her presentation she says a lot of her "tweets" are falsified photoshops reposted by aggressors. Actually going to her twitter, you can't see her tweets unless you're a follower of her, of which there's only about 3,000

That is a complete falsehood, people and the press have archived her tweets. The protected twitter crap is a recent development because she got embarrassed when people used past ones against her then she tried to delete them.

The SJW will literally make things up to suit their purposes and people still defend them. This is insane.

UHD wrote on Oct 6, 2014, 12:06:I'm mostly talking about bullshit like this:

ASeven wrote on Oct 5, 2014, 16:50:This is why SJWs must not be allowed to keep spreading their hate-filled speech lest gaming suffers a backward leap so huge it may set the industry decades until it recovers.

Have your opinions, but don't go thinking nobody else can have theirs because they're not the same as yours. That stupid shit benefits no one.

The irony of this, coming from you, is hilarious.

Though I gladly admit my fault in writing that phrase that way, didn't mean it to sound it like that. Perhaps I should have said:

This is why SJWs should be overwhelmed with facts to silence their lies and strawmen to keep them from spreading their hate-filled speech lest gaming suffers a backward leap so huge it may set the industry decades until it recovers.

Prez wrote on Oct 5, 2014, 16:15:I agree that the issue has gotten somewhat convoluted (partially by design on the part of the self-righteous crusaders who like building strawmen then later cutting them down) but I have to agree with Redmask. My fear is that if we don't at least occasionally offer up some significant resistance to the absolute face-palm stupid things the hyprocritical crusading thought police are pushing we may be sorry we didn't later on down the road. Beamer is wrong; they don't just want the occasional game with a strong female lead. They want far more than that, and without someone offering counterpoint to their idiocy, developers and publishers may eventually start listening to them. That's my opinion anyway.

They want what all moral movements in history ever wanted, control and power. Power to dictate what can be said and written and what not. Power to stop the production of anything they don't like.

They are the typical representation of thought police and anyone who knows a bit of history or sociology can tell, thought police movements never bring any good to society, never. From the Volstead Act of 1919 to Nazi Germany and their race ideology to the witch hunts of McCarthy, history has shown that anyone using any kind of "moral" ideology to push their own agenda has ended up bringing misery upon society. SJWs are a reflection of the thought police movement, self-described oppressed people who suffered some sort of oppression, be it real or imagined, and are now using it as an excuse to restrict, censor and mold society to their own ideology with the end results always being terrible.

This is why SJWs must not be allowed to keep spreading their hate-filled speech lest gaming suffers a backward leap so huge it may set the industry decades until it recovers.

For a final insight and a bit of a laugh, I leave this picture as an example. Take your own conclusions.

"Recently, as part of the anti-women #GamerGate campaign[2], a set of awful humans convinced Intel to terminate an advertising campaign because the site hosting the campaign had dared to suggest that the sexism present throughout the gaming industry might be a problem. Despite being awful humans, it is absolutely their right to request that a company choose to spend its money in a different way."

"Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication or other information which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient as determined by governments, media outlets, authorities or other such entities."

I see the article hasn't been pulled. I see nobody has been silenced, no articles pulled, no speech stiffled. In fact, I don't think they teach removing adverts as censorship in any law school in the known universe.

I think Beamer means the censorship Zoe Quinn done by DMCAing Mundane Matt's video at the start of Gamergate. Or reddit banning pro-Gamergate discussions. Or 4chan. Or even Gamasutra and RPS and Polygon banning comments about gamergate which wouldn't be cesorship since they're privately owned sites but it sure as hell it fits the description better than Beamer's diseased use of the word.

"The members of #GamerGate have been exercising measures to go after the sponsors and advertisers for sites like Kotaku, Polygon and Gamasutra. E-mailing the advertisers and politely asking them to drop support for those sites has been a prime goal of the movement. Interestingly enough, anti-#GamerGate groups have been keeping an eye on this movement and even mocked the attempts to contact advertisers."

"Nearly a month after it began, GamerGate is a fire that refuses to go out.

The hashtag campaign has opened up a chasm between the gaming press and their audience. Currently standing at close to a million tweets (over twice that of #Destiny), #GamerGate shows no signs of stopping. A related tag, #NotYourShield, has cleared 120,000. But what lies behind it? Why did it come about? And why are people so angry?"

Beamer wrote on Sep 22, 2014, 20:40:1) You never defined "intellectual dishonest" and said how it relates to me. You're like a dog with a bone with that term, which I assume you picked up on Twitter, but you've never once actually applied it. You just put it out there. Never with a "because..."

Definition of intellectual dishonest: you. Simple.

Beamer wrote on Sep 22, 2014, 20:40:2) Misolgist, nice, you learned a new word. You still fail to actually cite anything, though, so it's hard to tell why you use it

Been citing tons of stuff, it's you who never acts on it. Also, learning new words is good, it culturally enriches you, you should try it.

Beamer wrote on Sep 22, 2014, 20:40:3) You do not get to say what a "real" feminist is, but look at the link to the Rational Wiki, one of the premier sources of atheist discussion, and see why Thunderf00t is considered a giant raging asshole. I sourced it for you, and, conveniently, it also has sources rather than simply red Paint lines. I'll also give you a quote:

The videos are heavy on strawmen; they misrepresent feminists' arguments to an extent that is either grossly naive or wilfully disingenuous, and propagate stereotypes of feminists as frigid, joyless "professional victims". To underline this point, the second video contrasts footage of Watson and others talking seriously about their concerns, with a montage of party photos showing Mason and his pals larking around in silly costumes, drinking and hugging. Victory!

You accuse me of "intellectual dishonesty" and "misology" yet you say that Thunderf00t is a feminist.

And you don't get to generalize and define what a real feminist is either. Apparently you have no idea about feminism, typical of a SJW, since there are three waves of feminism, the third-wave being the ones that use the misogynist word so heavily it lost all its meaning at this point. Also, if you had done some research, instead of relying on some site, something you keep on preaching that others do to their detriment, you would find out that wiki is heavily biased to "feminists", hence their attack on Thunderf00t. Of course, research and facts is something you abhor.

So it's ok to generalize when it favors SJWs, gotcha!

Beamer wrote on Sep 22, 2014, 20:40:Though I did forget you said you wouldn't respond to me anymore, which was convenient, as it let you be Cutter and say something flagrantly incorrect (that you can't be fired for things you do outside of work) and then never respond when corrected.

So, I made a mistake. When I worked at S&P the laws at the US were more lax. Though I love how you generalize, something you seem so much to be against though not when it's about defending SJWs, and seem to think I know nothing based on a single mistake.

And this is truly the last time I reply to you. Misologists deserve no reply and I'm getting tired of being baited by you, my fault I know, but won't happen again. Too tired of your circular logic, strawmen, misology, intellectual dishonesty. You offer nothing new but the same tired argument which has been debunked time and time again. It's getting tiresome showing you facts and destroying your arguments.